Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That’s because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

“He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it,” Huizenga said. “I’d rather give it to charity than to him.”

By Sarah Talalay | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Full article

The second ever Bill Martin award for lunacy in government goes to the proponents of Measure Q.

As not reported in the Auburn Journal

They sued the Placer CRA – actually the Placer County Clerk’s office because they accepted our ballot argument against the Colfax school district’s school tax measure.

The Colfax argument in favor was replete with the same platitudes any school tax measure is full of – but the kicker is that the Placer CRA got mobilized to submit arguments against every local tax measure on the ballot.

The folks in the Colfax Unified School District wasted taxpayer money to SUE US over people who signed the argument against this tax. That’s correct – we need you to tax yourselves to pay for more whatever, but we are going to use money we say we don’t have to fight to get this tax passed.

After having a San Francisco law firm serve us with papers – apparently, the district decided against proceeding with their lawsuit.

A copy of the dismissal is posted here

The Colfax Unified School District has earned the second ever Bill Martin Award for Lunacy in Government – the first ever given to someone not named Bill Martin.

The biggest news – Prop 93, Term Limits fraud, loses. Big winner, Steve poizner – big loser, Fabian Nunez and Don Perata.

Prop 94-97, the referrenda against the Indian Gaming compacts put on the ballot by the Labor Unions failed. The CRA supported these measures while some could not sort through the Gambling issue – the voters did, by about 10% statewide.

Big winner – property rights! The NIMBY / IHMYCHY crowd couldn’t stop measure H in Rocklin.

Big Winner – taxpayers…

Measure J fails 58-41 in favor (needed 67%)... this was the measure that would have increased the park tax 50% and then indexed it in future years. They should have tried to renew it at the same rate…

Measure G fails 52-48 in favor. This was one of those 55% bonds that the Loomis School District went to the ballot with for the third time.

Don’t forget that the Placer GOP Central Committee and the Placer CRA were being attacked over our opposition before we even opposed this measure!

Because the Central Committee is now an endorsing body – there are several who now want to take the committee over for the express purpose of preventing any future endorsements. This is another of the angles in the Ose v. Oller race – Ose has participated in the Liberal takeover of two county committees in the past…

Rumor has it that Placer is in the crosshairs. Those supporting Ose have to know about this angle as well…

Here is a simple consideration as we ponder ‘Prop 93’ today.

Who would you rather have as Speaker of the Assembly; The current Speaker, Fabian Nunez or Los Angeles Assemblywoman Karen Bass?

Who would you rather have as the Republican Leader for the State Senate, current leader Dick Ackerman (although I personaly like, and respect, Senator Ackerman – but he is termed out) or the solid conservative ideaology of veteran State Senator George Runner?

Who would you rather have as the next Senate President Pro Tem, the current Senator Don Perata, or Sacramento resident (and a personal friend, workable guy – yes, liberal), and State Senator Darrell Steinberg?

For the Republican Leadership in the Assembly, nothing would change with the passing, or failing of Prop 93, as it relates to GOP Leader of the Assembly, Mike Villines. Villines is the guy no matter the result.

So, a “YES” vote for “Prop 93” keeps Nunez, Perata, Ackerman and Villines in their positions over this budget crisis.

A “NO” vote forces “changes” with Runner, Bass and Steinberg, in addition to the current Villines in the GOP Assembly.

This is easy; say “NO” to 93 and make Mike Villines the most senior leader inside of the “Big 5” with the governor, and force the Democrats to choose “new blood” with the likes of Darrell Steinberg and Karen Bass up against our George Runner and Mike Villines.

Vote “NO” on 93, advantage GOP!

Something to consider when you hear the PR message about experience in the legislature as it relates to Prop 93 passing.

I’ll take my chances (let’s call it an opportunity) with “the experience” of Villines and Runner over Steinberg and Bass for the next couple of years of budget battles.

It’s sophomoric to think that supporting 93 brings “immediate experience” to the state legistalture!

Folks, we need immediate budget attention and Prop 93 does not bring an immediate remedy for the current fiscal problem in Sacramento – it actually solidifies (rewards) those who have overseen the problem.

If it is too much to comprehend, then “take my word on it”, vote “NO” on Prop 93. Don’t reward bad accountability with more oversight.

Now that my campaign to represent the District 4 residence on the floor of the Assembly has been placed on ‘pause’ for the next few months, or maybe years, I now have some political time on my hands.

For those who missed my four months of campaigning, you can educate yourself on my race by visiting www.erichogueforassembly.com, I’ve decided to keep my content active for the next few weeks.

Thus, (I like sounding parliamentary) I’ve been invited to ‘blog’ for the great folks here at the Placer-CRA. I’m a member of the CRA, and now a member of the ever growing Placer-CRA ‘Blog Page’. I’m a daily reader, now an active blogger – I feel like I just confessed to the “Hair Club for Men”.

I start with a little breaking news today…

Yesterday I was voted to sit on the Board of Directors for “The People’s Advocate” in Sacramento. For those who do not know Ted Costa (The Father of the Recall), this organization has been a wonderful tool in educating the public concerning issues of taxation, government spending and our ‘out-of-control’ financing for California. Not to mention the initiatives that Costa and the People’s Advocate have brought to ballots for the citizens of the Golden State.

As it relates to my campaign, I promised that I would step aside if Ted Gaines decided to ‘not’ run for Congress…and I did. I also promised that I would stay involved politically – and I’m making moves to do just that. Adding this blog page to my political duties is another means to stay connected…both you to me, and me to you…for a future relationship in public service.

What do you say about starting this this relationship with a question?

Considering the effort to ‘reform the legislature’ with the fraudulent and personally pleasing “Proposition 93” (I’m voting No on 93, Willie Brown may come back to Sacto if this thing passes!), I’d like to ask your opinions about future propositions and initiatives that might bring ‘real reform’ to the Capitol in Sacramento.

Of the following ‘three’ initiative ideas, which one do you support for ‘real reform’?

1. Re-Districting with ‘fair’ districts that are apportioned with integrity toward population and not the majority party or politicians in control of the crayon that draws the lines.

2. Part-Time Legislature, reducing the costs of our political representatives, while reducing the size (population) of districts and increasing the number of representatives in Sacramento. In district more, able to communicate with a smaller district and reducing the dependence upon large staffs and full time fiscal costs.

3. Flat Tax, determining a percentage for the State of California that reduces the costs of housing and increases the amount of take home pay for employee and employer alike. Adding to this proposal a budget accountability threshold, if you spend beyond the means you automatically cut portions of the government to meet your fiscal balance, and those who are cut can blame the political spenders.

Give me your thoughts in the comment section below – let’s pick this blog page up and pass it around the state for more input and dialogue.

I believe that “Prop 93” goes down to defeat. We will need some new, sexier proposition, easily understood initiatives for the future of California. Your thoughts here will be offered for fodder in this never ending conversation of reform. I thank you.

(Editor’s Note – The Placer CRA has endorsed No on G, we were attacked by a Loomis School Board Member before we even took that position. Carol Goldberg is a friend of the CRA, our membership roster is not public knowledge)

Does anyone know Carol Goldberg? Maybe we ought to make her an honorary member of the PCRA, she sounds awesome! I know the PCRA hasn’t taken positions yet but this was a guest commentary in the SacBee today and I wanted to post it.

“What happens when you cross a sore loser with people who like to spend other people’s money?

The answer is Measure G – a copy of last year’s defeated local school bond (Measure M), heavily pushed by the Loomis Union School District. Measure G is an unnecessary school bond that will increase your taxes for 25 years.

Why was this bond measure reintroduced immediately after you voted against it?

It not only proposed an unnecessary bond based on misinformation but also encourages more taxation and mismanagement of your tax dollars.

Measure G will not improve education, nor will it increase property values. But it will guarantee one thing: It will put money in pockets where it doesn’t belong.”

Read the full, well written article here

Dear Jack Day, (Jack is a Loomis School Board Member)

If you honestly believe that taxes are too low and taxpayers bear the blame for the conditions in our schools, then we should politely agree to disagree. I am sure that we can still work together on the areas where we agree. Every disagreement should not be considered an insult to someone’s integrity. Rather than raising taxes again and again and again, the Republican volunteers I work with would prefer educational reforms that would reduce the costs of running our local schools. I hope you will let us know if there is an opportunity to work together toward something like that. I can certainly understand your frustration after so many years of fighting to improve the schools. If tax increases are always the first resort, I don’t believe that we will ever be able to get the educational establishment to focus on the real problems facing our schools.

I take issue with your comment about “this unilateral determination” in the context of the Placer County Republican Party endorsement, but perhaps I misunderstood your point. I am not aware of any unilateral determinations with regard to the opponents of Measure G. It almost sounds as if you are saying that the Placer County Republican Central Committee, the Placer County Republican Assembly, the California Republican Assembly, the Placer County Taxpayers League, the local No on G Committee in Loomis, and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee all acted unilaterally TOGETHER in opposing Measure G. These groups did not hold any joint meetings and most members of the different groups do not even know each other. In any event, separate endorsements by unrelated organizations do not constitute unilateral action. I apologize if I am jumping to the wrong conclusion about what you meant.

By contrast, the vote of your Board of Trustees was a unilateral action. If my information is correct, your Board of Trustees did not contact any of the bond’s opponents or likely opponents when you unilaterally decided to place Measure G on the ballot in a low turn-out special election. Instead of placing a normal bond on the ballot (requiring two-thirds approval from voters), your Board unilaterally decided to seek a “Proposition 39 bond” requiring only 55% voter approval. If you consulted anyone about that decision, I am not aware of it. I note that there is an unresolved legal question about whether Proposition 39 bonds are even eligible for placement on a special presidential primary election ballot. Perhaps the courts will have to resolve that matter if the bond receives approval. In any event, it seems more accurate to say that your Board acted unilaterally, but the bond opponents did not.

As a result of the unilateral action by your Board of Trustees, the Placer County Republican Central Committee did not receive ANY notice of Measure G until it was too late to invite your Board members to a meeting to explain the need for it. We had no reason to even suspect that local school boards would seek to take advantage of the special election on February 5th to place Prop. 39 bonds on the ballot. I was willing to call a special meeting during the holidays, if necessary, but there was little or no support on the part of the Central Committee for such a special meeting in the middle of the Christmas season. Thus, as a result of the unilateral action of the Board of Trustees, the Central Committee had no opportunity to meet with you in public before the vote to oppose the bond was taken. I am as frustrated about that as you are. In the future, I hope you will let me know if you are planning to place bonds and tax increases on the ballot.

For your benefit, I should mention that our Central Committee members are just as unlikely as most Republican voters to support a tax increase for schools or for any other purpose. Easily two-thirds of our Committee members agreed with Ken Campbell’s argument that we should NEVER support a Proposition 39 bond and we should continue to fight to overturn that disastrous initiative and restore the two-thirds vote for tax increases that Proposition 13 required. I am not saying that to defend the fact that you were not invited to speak, since I really wish the Central Committee had been given enough time to invite speakers. I am just trying to explain that speakers would not likely have impacted the outcome of the Central Committee endorsement.

I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you on something positive in the future. I am sorry that we disagree on Measure G.

Tom Hudson, Chairman
Placer County Republican Party

Measure “E” the Dry Creek School Bond – I replied to someone who posted a comment criticizing us for opposing their bond.

I asked the obvious question about an audit of the district to see what they did with their money… On New Year’s Eve, I was at a get together with someone who is a substitute teacher in the district who told me…

That the Bond is being floated to complete a middle school campus that the district ran out of money to complete. The issues at hand were cost overruns and money that was spent on items other than the school.

The administrators attempted to compel this person and others to campaign on behalf of this bond. This acquaintance refused to do so and characterized the sentiments of others as being the same.

Like Western Placer Unified – some heads need to roll in the Dry Creek District, starting with the Teacher’s Union who hand-picked their board.

Measure J – the Rocklin Park Tax.

The measure was not put on the ballot by the Rocklin City Council. This measure was put back on the ballot by the same citizens board that got the original tax passed in the first place.

The issue that burnt me out on this tax was not only do the proponents want to increase it 50% per parcel – they want to index the tax up every subsequent year for the CPI!

Measure H – the Environmentalist groups referendum against development. Vote yes and support the Rocklin City Council, vote no and support the Sierra Club and people who like small clogged freeways and cities with nowhere for people to live.

Visit Clover Valley for All to learn the facts that the local media and the Sierra Club can’t hide.

Measure E – Dry Creek School Bond – NO
This is a fiscally-irresponsible $67.3 million school bond for the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in the Roseville area. This District has adequate funding and their revenues are growing rapidly, so they have no business asking taxpayers take on additional debt.

Measure F – South Placer Fire “Tax” – NO
UPDATED 1/3/2008
Measure F – Spending Limit Exemption for the South Placer Fire Protection District – NO
This ballot measure would exempt the South Placer Fire Protection District from the Gann Spending Limit. District officials insist that this measure will not lead to future parcel tax increases or benefit assessments, and no such taxes and fees have been proposed by staff or by the District’s Board of Directors. However, this measure would allow the District to continue to spend more than the California Constitution would otherwise allow and we oppose it on that basis.

Measure G – Loomis School Bond – NO
This is a fiscally-irresponsible $17.7 million school bond for the Loomis Union School District . This well-funded District needs to prioritize its spending, rather than demanding higher taxes every year.

Measure H -Clover Valley Development in Rocklin YESFor many years, environmental wackos and “no-growthers” have opposed every plan to develop the privately-owned land in Clover Valley, which has been slated for development for a generation. The Rocklin City Council finally approved a dramatically scaled-back development plan, with widespread community support, but leftist radicals gathered signatures to force it onto the ballot. If this measure fails, the land owners will either demand full payment for the private land that they have not be allowed to development (which would be astronomically expensive and un-affordable for a small city like Rocklin) OR they will take back all the compromises and build a much larger development that the environmental wackos will hate even more. For the sake of private property rights, voters need to support Measure H.

Measure J – Rocklin Park Tax Increase – No
This is an unnecessary and unfair parcel tax that the proponents have tried to disguise as the mere continuation of an existing tax that was about to expire. In fact, this measure would increase the expiring tax by 50% from $30 per parcel to $45 per parcel (regardless of size, value, or benefits received), then increase the tax every single year to adjust for inflation. In a small city whose budget has doubled in five years, the proponents are pretending that the only way they can fund parks is to increase taxes, despite the fact that most city residents already pay enormous Mello-Roos bonds and developer fees to pay for these same parks.

Bush’s latest bill signed into law lets irresponsible home owners who borrowed too much money, paid too much for their home, spent the equity in the home like it was free money from an ATM machine and squandered it all, off the hook. Normally, if you are forgiven payment on a debt, the IRS makes you pay tax on that balance. Now a borrower can walk scott free from their house, not pay back the mortgage and not pay tax on the forgiven debt. Bush’s legacy will be that he allowed deadbeats to get away with murder. What kind of message does this give to America’s kids? How is this moral? Bush is really becoming a liability to the Republican Party. Wait til next November and see who wins office. Thanks George, you’re the best Democrat ever to take office.

By Jim Wasserman – jwasserman@sacbee.com
Published 5:49 am PST Friday, December 28, 2007

For households mired in mortgage troubles, there’s one less worry this year.

That’s the nasty tax consequence of avoiding foreclosure by selling a home through a “short sale” or other loan rearrangements.

A bill signed by President Bush last week lets homeowners off the hook for a little-known tax bite that occurs when mortgage debts are forgiven. The reprieve applies to households that use short sales or other mortgage relief efforts during 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The National Association of Realtors is among those saluting the president’s action, calling it “an issue of fairness and not kicking people when they are down.”

First, the definition of a short sale. It’s where the bank agrees to accept less than it’s owed when a home sells. These sales, which enable banks to avoid the even costlier process of foreclosing and selling the house in a declining market, have become increasingly common this year.

Under the standard short-sale scenario, if you sold your house this year for $350,000 but owed the bank $400,000, you’d have hefty tax consequences in 2008. The IRS would count that $50,000 in canceled debt as taxable income. It’s what’s known as “forgiven debt” and typically triggers a 1099 tax form.

But now, the IRS is required – for three years – to abandon its traditional tax rules on canceled debts. The moratorium also applies if a lender forgave some of your mortgage debt through a loan workout.

It’s a temporary measure during this real estate slowdown and is only for loans involving a primary residence. It does not apply to investor-owned properties.

The hope is that without the fear of incurring an IRS tax bill, more struggling borrowers will call lenders and negotiate alternatives to foreclosure, according to the real estate industry, which backed the bill.

In the capital region, one short-sale specialist praised the move but said it won’t really bring much debt relief.

“Many of these people weren’t going to pay the tax, anyway,” said Scott Thompson, a partner in Mortgage Resolution Services in Carmichael. “There was a part of the tax code that granted them immunity if they were insolvent.”

But, he added, it’s “clearly a good thing” that people already under financial stress won’t have to worry about additional tax problems.

By: Avi Zenilman
Dec 14, 2007 06:16 AM EST

On the campaign trail, Rudy Giuliani touts the supply-side economics popular among Republicans since Ronald Reagan was president.

Giuliani consistently echoes President Bush’s assertion in February 2006: “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”

But there’s a growing sentiment among many conservative economists — including those who generally support cutting taxes to spur economic growth and job creation — that Giuliani’s statements are simplistic and at worst misleading.

Rest of story

A very reliable source on the Rocklin City Council has contacted this blogger and revealed that after a planning commission meeting, the following has been determined.

Due to improvements on I-80 and Sierra College Blvd, the voters have seen the two worst perceived traffic issues dealt with. Thanks to Congressman Doolittle’s earmarks brought back to the district, these problems have been addressed.

However, the complete project on I-80 is not funded. At least one direction will not be expanded between Douglas and the 65 freeway if no additional funding is obtained.

Of further note is that the HWY 65 bypass around Lincoln will only be one lane in each direction as the funding is not there for the second phase which is the second lane in each direction.

The biggest issue cited by my source was a lack of public knowledge that the issue was even going to come to the ballot. Only 18% polled in the private poll even knew that a 1/2 cent sales tax was being considered. Amazing…

Look for a possible redux of this issue in 2012.

Did you know that so far in 2007 there have been two tax increases slipped in under the radar?

There are also more on the way… what’s frustrating is that I actually am leaning twoard supporting the rumored transportation levy. With the dearth of taxing that could be coming onto the ballot – people might just get a gag reflex and vote them all down.

While serving on the Placer County Republican Party endorsement committee, I can remember something like 18 tax measures that we had to look over to consider endorsing. It was staggering to think that in such a conservative county as Placer that would be the case.

So far in 2007 – there was the now infamous Mosquito Tax that was style in such a way that its’ passage was assured. Other Placer CRA club members have been leading the charge to inform people.

Also in 2007 – a specially carved out district within the Roseville Joint Union High School district was drawn with the express purpose of assuring successful passage of a school bond – only 12 people were in that “district”. They were all exempted from the Bond, but the homeowners whose homes are not yet built will be subject to it.

Coming soon in 2007 – Loomis School Bond Tax, the Placer CRA has not even taken a position on this Bond, but word has come back to us that at least one of the proponents of said bond has been criticizing the Placer CRA.

Loomis Fire District Benefit Assessment

Rocklin City Council wants to renew the Park Tax. Most Rocklin City Council members have been long standing supporters of the congressman by the way… I have yet to talk to any of them about their rationale for wanting to renew that tax.

Finally, there is the soon to be proposed 1/2 cent sales tax to pay for desperately needed transportation improvements. John Doolittle can not bring enough earmarks home to pay for what we need in Placer County.

I also am have read that the Sierra College board are considering floating another bond.

Much like the absurd media reporting around our congressman and the half-truths and engineered stories designed to attack John Doolittle – we have the Placer Mosquito Abatement District.

They sent ballots out to parcel owners in innocuous yellow envelopes that looked like junk mail.

Inside was an official ballot and a 12-page flyer with a picture of a mosquito 1,000 times its’ normal size and hyperbolic information about west nile virus.

The bottom line is that after investigation and the reaction of certain board members to the accountability afforded them by the County Central Committee suggests that the Mosquito Board Knew what they were doing and they rigged a tax increase guaranteed to pass.

This Parcel tax is another grab bag of stuff for building facilities and the like… just like any school bond. Except a parcel tax charges the Galleria’s Parcel the same amount as my folk’s home lot. Nice.

Need more info – e-mail this author.